Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

[F_Marturana]

"That page doesn’t exist " is the message I get when I click your Nancy Sinatra link. It’s not a verified account. Verified accounts have blue check marks after the name.

 

[rcwitness]

What should I consider about rape?

 

[MidwestGuy]

Think about the evil object used in rape…

 

[rcwitness]

What is the evil object used in rape???

 

[exnihilo]

The acts done with guns are evil, and so banning them does oppose an evil.

No, by far most aren’t. Only a very few are. Most are used for collecting and target shooting. Many are used for self defense. A very small few are used for crime.

I don’t think I should do that. Suicides are tragically bad outcomes for which we ought to be just as concerned as murders.

OK, so we need to eliminate instruments of suicide. We’ve already eliminated cars, knives, and frying pans cause they are used to kill people. Now we have to get rid of bridges, rope, and all prescription pills because they are instruments of suicide.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I’m saying that we can make things illegal that allow an object to be used for evil.

What is the evil object used in rape???

You didn’t specify an 'evil object", just an object that can be used for evil. That’s an absurd proposition, which I was just pointing out.

How many objects that can be used for evil do you want to ban? Or are you limiting the ban on things that can be used for evil to guns alone?

 

[Inisfallen]

But he could have killed a lot more by blowing the nearby fuel tanks. Some say he fired into them trying to do that, but had he blown one of them with the ammonium nitrate and tannerite he had, the casualties would have been in the thousands. He planned with a meticulousness that some find remarkable, but his plan did have some serious flaws. Apparently he believed he could leave that scene and go kill people elsewhere with the other materials and weapons he had. Maybe we’ll eventually find out where and how he planned to do it. But indisputably, some of it did not involve guns at all.

Imaginably the ammonium nitrate and tannerite were for the fuel tanks and he planned to blow them after leaving the hotel.

I guess we’re lucky he had all those guns, then, and was able to modify them to achieve a rapid rate of fire. I guess that kept him from doing a lot worse, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK, so we need to eliminate instruments of suicide. We’ve already eliminated cars, knives, and frying pans cause they are used to kill people. Now we have to get rid of bridges, rope, and all prescription pills because they are instruments of suicide.

The NIH has studied car safety in an effort to reduce death from auto accidents. The NIH and other government agencies have studied many ways in which people die and ways in which those deaths might be prevented. But do you know one area that the NIH and all such government agencies have been prohibited by law from studying? Gun violence. Yup. For the past 21 years it has been illegal to fund any research into gun violence by federal agencies. As powerful as the automotive lobby is, it was not able to get a ban on studying air-bag safety. But the gun industry wields so much power they can effectively put a halt to even looking at how guns can be made safer. Wow!

 

[exnihilo]

That is great news. The government shouldn’t be wasting money studying things. That is the job of private organizations. I’m sure the NIH has wasted all sorts of money and funded politically connected individuals and corporations.

But really, what is to study? Wear ear and eye protection and you’ll be safe shooting. The one thing that would increase safety is silencers, which unlike in the movies don’t make a gun silent. What they do achieve is reducing hearing loss for shooters and making the countryside quieter with less gun noise. But there is an irrational bias against these healthful improvements.

 

[Jig_Saw]

How is an insurance company going to know how I store my firearms or how much time I spend at the range? Without that information how are they going to accurately assess risk? Even if they could monitor that information, a single event like Las Vegas or Newtowne could easily bankrupt an insurance company. What insurance company would be willing to take on that financial risk? The obvious answer is none, which is why insurance mandates for firearms ownership is really a backdoor ban. I suspect you know this is true, which is why you support it. For all the talk about “reasonable gun control”, the real goal of the gun control movement is banning the private ownership of firearms. 2nd amendment supporters have caught on to this which is why our instinct is to be skeptical of any new laws.

An insurance company could ask for pictures of your rifle safe or have certifications for training courses that would result in reduced costs. They do this for car insurance. Why do you think it would be so hard for insurance on weapons?

An insurance company would be willing to take it on if there is a profit to be had. I don’t see any reason why a company wouldn’t be willing to do this. Personally, it seems like the objections look more like people wanting to enjoy their rights without taking on any of the responsibility.

 

[Jig_Saw]

911 and Oklahoma City together killed more people than all the gun shootings combined. More recently, the BAstille Day murders by truck greatly outnumbered the Paddock killings. Why ignore the obvious fact that mass killings are becoming a commonplace, and assume that restricting the gun rights of honest citizens is somehow the answer.

But I think most here understand that what the left wants is just a gun ban for its own sake, having nothing to do with seriously addressing what has become a significant societal hazard.

911 was an act of war. Oklahoma City seems to have been a one-off incident in the United States. If it weren’t, we would be talking about how to make sure it doesn’t happen again and would be having serious conversations about adding substances to Ammonium Nitrate to suppress explosions. But we are talking about the murder of 59 people via guns. So, it seems appropriate to talk about why gun owners expect all of society to take on the financial costs of them exercising their rights. They can have their guns, but they can’t have my life and my property as well. I have the right to that.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

That is great news. The government shouldn’t be wasting money studying things. That is the job of private organizations. I’m sure the NIH has wasted all sorts of money and funded politically connected individuals and corporations.

But really, what is to study? Wear ear and eye protection and you’ll be safe shooting. The one thing that would increase safety is silencers, which unlike in the movies don’t make a gun silent. What they do achieve is reducing hearing loss for shooters and making the countryside quieter with less gun noise. But there is an irrational bias against these healthful improvements.

I’ve got an old, cheap .22 revolver that I will use to go and plink cans with my brothers. Unfortunately there seems to be a small (unintentional) gap between the cylinder and the barrel that really puts some umph into that bang, and it is absolutely painful to shoot without ear protection. I’d never expect a .22 to be so earsplitting…

 

[Jig_Saw]

It doesn’t. I don’t think you can stop cases like this guy. That is why I am not floundering for a solution. If anyone really thinks they can solve evil let me know.

Immigrants don’t have a right to come to the US. It is funny some think non citizens have a right to come here but citizens don’t have a right to firearms which are specifically protected in our constitution.

Ok, so the response is “It would have happened anyway” so the new normal is that we need to accept 50 people getting murdered at once every year because we can’t possibly look at the problem.

 

[ucfengr]

Is a 50 year old husband and father dying of a heart attack or cancer any less tragic to a family than one getting shot? Is a 40 year old mother losing a leg to Type 2 diabetes any less disabled than one that loses it to a gunshot?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is great news. The government shouldn’t be wasting money studying things. That is the job of private organizations. I’m sure the NIH has wasted all sorts of money and funded politically connected individuals and corporations.

Typical anti-regulation rant.

 

[ucfengr]

Since a single event like Las Vegas or Sandy Hook could bankrupt an insurance company, I don’t see how they can profitably sell the insurance, which I’m sure you know. Personally I think it is a back door ban of firearms, and personally, I think you know that, and personally, I don’t think gun control advocates are willing to be honest about what they really want, which is a ban on the private ownership of firearms, because they know the public would never go for it, so they talk about “common sense regulation”, which focus groups well, but don’t talk about what they, and you, really want.

 

[ucfengr]

I assume she deleted the Tweet, because it was her blue check marked account.

 

[exnihilo]

Ok, so the response is “It would have happened anyway” so the new normal is that we need to accept 50 people getting murdered at once every year because we can’t possibly look at the problem.

Well yes we should accept that evil happens. That doesn’t mean we like it. We should try to stop it if we can. But I’ve read of no ideas to stop evil that work. I’ve seen lots of ideas that will increase the success of evil.

Typical anti-regulation rant.

Not a rant. Its an opinion.

 

[rcwitness]

Is a 50 year old husband and father dying of a heart attack or cancer any less tragic to a family than one getting shot? Is a 40 year old mother losing a leg to Type 2 diabetes any less disabled than one that loses it to a gunshot?

No, I wouldn’t say so. Why?

Or perhaps yes. It’s inflicted by the senseless will of another person, as opposed to a natural happening. And in many of these cases, it’s multiple victims.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

What on earth would I need to purchase insurance for a firearm for? To insure against them being stolen and used in a murder? To insure against losing my mind and shooting people myself? So if some guy breaks into my house, steals my firearms, and uses them in a crime, your position is that I should be held liable unless I purchased anti-murder insurance against myself?

The whole idea is ludicrous. And I think we all know that the real idea is to make it very difficult for anyone to own a firearm by having to pay what amounts to annual ownership fees or taxes, and hopefully price people out of ownership. But aside from that, this insurance scheme would have done nothing to address this Las Vegas shooting. The man had enough money to purchase over 30 very high quality, high dollar rifles. The man easily had to spend over $40,000 on rifles alone, let alone magazines, ammunition, and his stock modifications. Firearms ownership fees would hardly have slowed him down.

What you are suggesting amounts to a poll tax for firearms. “Sure you have the right, but only if you pay”.

Let us not forget, the British didn’t outlaw and seize Colonial firearms in 1775. They were seizing gunpowder and shot. All of these harebrained schemes to reduce firearms proliferation and use are exactly what the second amendment exists to prevent.